1) ...whether any or all of the rocks "from the Apollo Missions" are lunar/terrestrial I could not say.
Do you know if geologists can say?
I have not studied this subject yet, but do intend to. Not a priority for me now.
Earlier you said the physical evidence was irrelevant to your claims. Why are you studying it now? Is that a concession that the evidence is, in fact, pertinent to your theory? And if so, why have you drawn your conclusion without first examining that pertinent evidence?
Then do you agree that it was premature of you to propose that as an explanation? Aren't you, in fact, grasping at the straws alluded to by the other hoax authors whom you despise?
Your approach of drawing up your conclusions, establishing your narratives, and
then going out to do the research is clearly backwards. Further, your assurance in the most forceful and belabored terms that your nascent theories are incontrovertible conveys the impression that you study not to understand, but merely to dig up more ammunition against Apollo no matter how tortured or misrepresentative your quotations may be. There is ample proof of this likely intent in the numerous times you've been caught quote-mining, with statements refuting your belief often in the same paragraph or page as your selection.
Further, you never acknowledge or concede error. This conveys the impression that you're trying to put one over on the reader.
5) The map problem is damning for all of Apollo, but not fatal. The map issue definitely eliminates Apollo 11 as "real"/manned.
You haven't shown how. You've merely shown that a certain map doesn't meet your personal standards, and further that you don't understand how maps are made and used (making your standards irrelevant). Why does that have any proof value?
The Borman health issue absolutely proves all of Apollo fraudulent...
You haven't shown how. Again, you've merely noted that the crew didn't do what you would have done. How does that constitute proof?
The Borman issue not being adequately addressed in the context of later missions...
You haven't addressed your change of horses, even though I've asked you twice now to do so.
Initially you argued that the Apollo 8 mission should have been aborted immediately when Borman's illness was discovered. You argue that neglecting to do so constituted a gross mismanagement of the health of the crew and the success of the mission.
Now -- perhaps succumbing to the fact that an abort would not materially affect the chances of infecting the other two crew members, and anticipating the response of the American people to the news that a multibillion-dollar mission had been scrapped because of a tummyache -- you say that steps should have been taken in later missions to deal with the threat of nasty stomach viruses. And that to fail to do so constituted a gross mismanagement of the health of the crew and the success of future missions.
Specially you said they should have "fixed the toilet," but you decline to say exactly what you think they should have done. The difference between a real engineer and an armchair wannabe is in the discovery and handling of all the applicable constraints and requirements.
I gave you an opportunity to specify your preferred solution and even gave you a helpful outline of a few of the things that would have to be considered in the design. But naturally you ignored it. Therefore your handwaving argument is rejected.
But in any case your notion of what absolutely "should" have been done changes arbitrarily, often to contradict what you said previously was "absolutely" necessary. How can you ask people to respect your judgment when you yourself can't even decide what's essential?
7) A map is representative of where one understands oneself to be going in the context of any adventure.
I agree that is one definition of and use for a map. And the vast array of maps that are made and used according to a variety of techniques demonstrate that no one method is singularly useful in that respect. Further, the use of other resources such as aerial photographs and descriptions of landmarks demonstrate that the problem of locating oneself has many possible solutions.
it is the fact that the map was intentionlly misgridded.
You haven't shown that the map was "misgridded." You have simply tried to make all maps fit your simplistic definition of a map, and to further demonstrate that you have limited skill at map-reading.
You haven't shown that any difference among maps used in Apollo arose from an intent to mislead. You've simply offered that as your explanation for why maps differ, then turned around and used it as a circular argument for why Apollo was faked.
8) I won't "do medicine" with you like that Loss Leader.
Then you forfeit any claim to argue on the basis of medical expertise. It's that simple.
It would be a very bad/foolish precident to set.
The precedent has already been set for centuries, extending all the way back to the
litterae patentes of the Middle Ages. If you want to be afforded the privileges of expertise or office, you must first demonstrate your expertise or authority openly, not merely protest that you have it. No
voir dire, no testimony. Loss Leader found it expedient to quiz me on my engineering understanding and my knowledge of Apollo. Not only did I consent to his request, which was reasonable, but I gave him an answer that left little question.
You have refused
every single request to demonstrate the expertise required by your claims. Do you see now why I have credibility and you do not? It is earned, not demanded.
But when this is over, our Apollo debate...
Not likely to happen. The hope for a cessation of debate depends on the observation of progress. Progress requires you to address what is said to you. You instead have promised simply to repeat the same walls of text any time you are asked a question. Your unwillingness to engage your critics means this debate will never progress, much less end.
What is likely to happen here is that which has happened everywhere else you've attempted to debate: you wear out the welcome and patience of your audience with your persistent ignorance and illogic until they will no longer tolerate your presence.
In fact the aim of a conspiracy theory debate is typically to prolong the debate, because only as long as the debate rages does the hoax proponent receive the attention he craves, even if it is the mockery of his critics.
I will show you my license, my board scores, and my award from the mayor of San Francisco.
Why not now?
For what it is worth, it would be extremely difficult to discredit me on the basis of proving me to not be a doc, or trying anyway to show me to not be one.
He doesn't have that burden of proof. You've claimed expertise but you will not demonstrate it. Therefore your argument remains in a state of failure until you submit to
voir dire.
You should ask your friends who are docs about my claims. See what they say.
I don't need to. The testimony of the attending physician is on record and you are aware of it. If you propose to challenge that evidence, then
you must provide the appropriate experts to contradict the prevailing expert. You said it would be easy to find physicians to agree with you, so I wonder why you haven't been able to produce any MDs qualified in space medicine who will go on record supporting your claim. Your layman's dismissal is worse than irrelevant; it's arrogant.
No matter what happens in this, I have made a decision to maintain my anonymity...
So your promise eventually to deliver your credentials was entirely empty?
Suit yourself. But understand that it is entirely rational to reject claims based on anonymous expertise. Your claim therefore is summarily rejected.
11) American people would freak out if they knew space was weaponized to the degree that it is...
You haven't shown that space is militarized to the degree that you claim it to be.
You haven't shown any evidence of outrage beyond your own toward the current militarization of space, much less toward any other level of militarization you theorize.
This claim is entirely supposition.
12) Space remains actively weaponized.
You haven't shown that it has been unlawfully weaponized at any time.
We were/are signatories to a treaty, a treaty signed in 1967. We agreed not to do this sort of thing, use space to kill people.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 does not simply forbid the "use of space to kill people." It contains specific terms. You have yet to show that the United States is in material violation of any of them. You have made accusations to that effect, but your notion of what constitutes proof for them is sorely lacking.
Getting busted for Apollo would be the greatest humiliation of modern times for the USA.
Supposition.
One could argue similarly that getting busted for your hoax theory would be the greatest humiliation for you.
Perhaps Obama and the astronauts cannot countenance it, but you and I can.
Every conspiracy theorist argues that only he is able to "handle the truth."
Better now, better now, better now...
People have been trying to prove Apollo was hoaxed since the 1970s, and have managed no more than a handful of easily dismissed pseudoscientific claims and a plethora of tall tales. So far you're faring rather worse than average.
13) No because whatever we are doing so too are the Russians.
Then why haven't we disclosed our knowledge of the inevitable Soviet bases on the Moon? Why haven't they disclosed their knowledge of ours? Why hasn't there been any leak or capture of a spy or document that gives the least bit direct support for your claim? Why, unlike nearly every other military program, has this one managed to have been kept absolutely airtight for 40 years?
You keep waffling back and forth between the Military Moon as a distinctively U.S. thing, by which we were to maintain supremacy over the Soviets, and the (more accurate) notion of a mutual stalemate. You can't have both. Which is it?
Knowing of the reality of the weaponization of space would frighten people to no end.
Some people, yes. And on the other side of the coin are people who prefer a strong defense and will want to know that it's there. We accept saber-rattling as a sometimes silly yet necessary part of global diplomacy. I'm not trying to form a moral argument between pacifism and militarism. I'm just trying to point out that both sides are there in the debate. You can't single out one of them and say they alone dictate policy.
14) I do not understand the question.
The question asks you to compare the process and techniques of navigating in a city to navigating on or near the Moon. It is an attempt to show you the irrelevance of your argument by analogy.
15) Well no scam is perfect.
But according to you, NASA made some glaring errors that should have been obvious to everyone. When you say that "common sense" lets you see NASA's errors, you have to explain how it failed to let them see those same errors. Common sense is for everyone, not just you.
Here's NASA with their army of flight surgeons, and for some reason -- in your scenario -- not a single one of them was consulted on the Apollo 8 narrative. Just a few seconds ago you argued that the prospect of a militarized Moon was so unpalatable and so universally odious that it had to remain hidden at all costs. But despite those desperate stakes, no one wandered down the hall to a flight surgeon's office and said, "Hey, we're thinking of giving Borman nausea and diarrhea on Apollo 8. Dunno, call it viral gastroenteritis or something. Could you help us think of something that won't get all the doctors out there suspicious?"
It would have been so easy in your scenario to get it right. But for some reason they got it horribly, horribly wrong (according to you). Not only wrong, but supposedly
blatantly wrong.
See, you're not the first person to use the "It's just obvious common sense" strategy. And you're not the first person to get slashed open by that two-edged sword. If it's so easy for the critics to see, then you have to answer why it wasn't easy for the alleged perpetrators to see -- and fix.
For the most part things like illnesses and "problems" served to make the phony missions more "realistic".
What a stunning admission! For six months you've latched onto every glitch, inconsistency, or misstep in the Apollo missions and tried to tell us that in a real mission such things would not be allowed to happen. Now suddenly you're trying to tell us that those same things are hallmarks of a real mission, such that they would have to be introduced into otherwise "perfect" scenarios.
Your notion of what a "real" space mission should look like is a mass of contradiction. Your criteria are simply knee-jerk reactions to what's being argued at the moment.
Things like the Armstrong picture issue are reflective of some deep rooted problem.
Yes, and that problem would be your deeply-rooted inability to see that your personal expectations are not an infallible, objective guide to authenticity. They're just your uninformed opinions, and no one is bound to obey them.
Perhaps they took pics and botched them.
And they can't have taken more pictures? I botch photos in the studio all the time. I just take more until I get them right.
There may have been a tip off that the thing was fake Loss Leader based on the pics such as something having to do with the camera, or its mount.
Asked and answered. Why would this not also hold for Aldrin, who was extensively photographed?
Of course with a real first moon landing you'd have Aldrin packing a camera too out there. This is so laughable.
Yes it is laughable, especially after NASA's rationale was explained and widely received here as logical and prudent. The complete inability to recognize that there can be a rationale and judgment beyond one's own is the essence of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you for being such a shining example.
Thanx for the questions. I found them thought provoking, quite good.
That means you're ready to answer my questions on the role of Doppler shift in navigation and tracking. When may I expect them?
And no, your answers here were highly dissatisfying and prove to me just how little you care about honest scholarship.
